[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YMYw4kJ/Erq6fbVh@lunn.ch>
Date: Sun, 13 Jun 2021 18:22:58 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Guangbin Huang <huangguangbin2@...wei.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, kuba@...nel.org, xie.he.0141@...il.com,
ms@....tdt.de, willemb@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lipeng321@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 04/11] net: z85230: remove redundant
initialization for statics
On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 03:38:16PM +0800, Guangbin Huang wrote:
> From: Peng Li <lipeng321@...wei.com>
>
> Should not initialise statics to 0.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peng Li <lipeng321@...wei.com>
> Signed-off-by: Guangbin Huang <huangguangbin2@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/wan/z85230.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c b/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
> index 94ed9a2..f815bb5 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/wan/z85230.c
> @@ -685,7 +685,7 @@ irqreturn_t z8530_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
> {
> struct z8530_dev *dev=dev_id;
> u8 intr;
> - static volatile int locker=0;
> + static int locker;
Is the volatile unneeded? Please document that in the commit message.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists